So much for "upvote unpopular opinions"
Posted Mar 30, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC
21817
Live by the second amendment as the founders intended. No police and no standing army.
2
PARSONS GANG
2
[removed]
1
Yes let's make it easier for homeless people to hurt themselves and others. Libertarian nonsense. The homeless don't need guns they need homes. Libertarian nonsense.
-17
I never said give them guns in lieu of homes.
20
No but you're promoting a less helpful and more controversial policy which is fine if you're trying to win edgy internet points but utterly stupid and borderline immoral if you actually care about the plight of the homeless.
-6
Dude, I'm just trying to question 2nd amendment exceptionalism in a well known right wing subreddit.
17
and others
Fuck you
3
you're downvoted but you're right. however i also see OP's point about the revolutionary potential of homeless people, though that is also a bit of a fetishization.
empowering the homeless doesn't = give them literal weapons. some people should be armed, some homeless people should be armed. a lot of people don't want or need to be, and insisting that, by virtue of their being homeless, people should be armed is what reveals OP's fetish.
you are right that what homeless people need is homes. for someone with a point like OP is making about revolutionary potential, to give people homes is to enmesh them further in the structures of the system and thus take away their motivation to rise up against the state.
and in any case it makes sense to be cynical about the reality of homeless people being allowed to live in homes, given the hatred people have for them. if people didn't have this hatred, homeless people would have homes by now, given all the empty properties in the US. and this would have to be something people "allow them" to do, unless the homeless had guns, because people's hatred of them + the states mechanism for violence = bad news.
ultimately OP's point is that it's about power, we are currently unable to give homeless people the power that comes with having ones own home, but it may be easier to swing the power that comes with one's own gun.
2
I mean, it's a post in unpopular opinion. I don't actually have to ascribe my real views to it. Most homeless I know wouldn't want a gun as it just gives the cops more reason to shoot them. I only posted it as a commentary on exceptionalism in regards to gun rights.
I'm not actually insisting every homeless person must own a gun. But I think it's stupid how everyone assumes a homeless person would kill everyone if they have a gun. It's dehumanizing to assume so.
1
Good thing I didn't say they'd "kill everyone" and made it clear my primary concern was that they'd hurt themselves which they of course are much more likely to do than defend themselves. Hurting others includes accidents and hurting other homeless people. Would it be dehumanizing teachers to say they shouldn't have guns in class because they're more likely to hurt themselves or others than defend (let alone successfully) against a surprise attack?
1
I was responding to the other dude's comment and bringing up what people were saying in the original thread. Chill dude.
1
The idea that you can organize the lumpen as a revolutionary class is profoundly misguided or at the very least a serious misreading of Marx and Lenin. What makes a class revolutionary isn't just that they get shit on, it's related their role in the system of production and the power they can exert because of that. This is why workers were identified as a revolutionary class.
Homeless people don't have the ability to disrupt the system in a material way. Besides organizing them even on simple issues is incredibly difficult for basic practical reasons, not having an address or a phone for instance, let alone provide them with the education needed to become a revolutionary class. Considering this, not giving the homeless homes because of their revolutionary potential isn't just profoundly immoral and hypocritical (I mean, you could decide to be homeless if you really wanted to) but also theoretically unsound.
"if people didn't have this hatred, homeless people would have homes by now, given all the empty properties in the US." I think you underestimate the power of Real Estate which is actually quite enormous.
1
I know that handing out Mossbergs sounds great, but given how the US views people who are homeless that would make the national news and bring a lot of law enforcement attention down on any organization that did it. Given that resources for this sort of thing are tight, I'd say they're better spent housing the homeless, providing medical care, etc.
Yes, I agree that is a better use of funds. But I also feel you can't think it's crazy for a homeless person to get a gun to defend themselves but be totally cool with someone with a home owning a gun for the same purpose.
Well, I agree. I speculate that homelessness makes one more likely to experience violent crime than most other factors. I suppose I'd like to see some kind of public locker system or armory or something, personally I'd hate to have a high value item like that on my person while sleeping rough.
Ideally they wouldn't need guns but the dehumanization of homeless people makes them the victim of many a hate crime. Often lethal.
I would want homes first, obviously. But I wanted to point out the exceptionalism people have for cops and themselves in regards to self defense rights.